| Party Dtls | Self / Adv Name | District | Current Status | Next Date of Hearing | Complaint Dispatched | Complaint Dispatched On | Dispatched Tracking Id | Complaint Dispatched Remarks | First-Hearing/Scrutinized Remarks | View Notice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAJEEV CHANDWANI V/S SPAZE TOWER PVT LTD |
VENKET RAO | GURUGRAM | DISPOSED | NOT REQUIRED | Not Yet | First hearing | -- |
| Date of Hearing | Status | Proceedings of the day | Bench | Order | Order Uploaded On |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22-Sep-2023 | DISPOSED | Matter is disposed off. | SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 28-Sep-2023 |
| 01-Sep-2023 | PENDING | Vide proceeding dated 19.05.2023, with a direction that Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. The counsel for the respondent states that since the matter is pending in NCLT and Delhi High Court and similar matters have already been disposed off by the authority in CR No.2102/2021 and 497/2019, 2009/2018 etc. decided on 10.02.2023 this matter should also be dealt with accordingly. Complaint stands dismissed keeping in view the above matters. File be consigned to the registry. An application has been filed by complainant for restoration of complaint as applicant cannot be made to suffer for the default of the counsel. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. The counsel for the respondent states that they have received mail from the authority on 29.08.2023 and earlier this matter was disposed off due to non-presence of the complainant. The counsel for the respondent requests for a short adjournment for filing of reply to the application for restoration of complaint. Request is allowed. Matter to come up on 22.09.2023 for further proceedings. | SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 05-Sep-2023 |
| 19-May-2023 | RE-OPEN/PENDING | RE-OPENED | SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 13-Jun-2023 |
| 24-Mar-2023 | PENDING | The present complaint was filed on 09.02.2021 with the adjudicating officer and the reply on behalf of respondent was received on 25.06.2021. File has been received on transfer from Adjudicating Officer in view of the judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Apex Court in the case bearing no. SLP(Civil) No(s). 37113715 OF 2021) titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd Versus State of U.P. and Ors., and wherein it was held that as matters regarding refund and interest under section 18(1) are to be decided by the authority and matters regarding adjudging compensation to be decided by the Adjudicating officer. The respondent has submitted an application dated 26.08.2021 for dismissal of the complaint wherein he plead that complainant is considered to be a dominus litis and in the present case he has already filed a complaint before an appropriate forum i.e., Hon’ble High Court and also before NCLT and the same is pending for adjudication and thus a fresh complaint on the basis of fresh cause of action cannot be entertained by the authority. Copy of the application has been handed over to the counsel for the complainant during proceeding. The counsel for the complainant states that they have filed complaint in NCLT and writ before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court but the relief being sought there are not same as those in RERA. The counsel for the complainant is directed to file reply to the application for dismissal of the complaint within 15 days with an advance copy to the respondent. Matter to come up on 19.05.2023 for further proceedings. | SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 28-Mar-2023 |
| 16-Dec-2022 | PENDING | Vide Resolution No. 750 dated 12.12.2022, it has been intimated by the District Bar Association Gurugram that the work shall remain suspended in District Courts on 16.12.2022 due to annual election of District Bar Association Gurugram and the Advocates would remain busy in the election. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to 24.03.2023 for the purpose as already fixed. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 20-Dec-2022 |
| 13-Sep-2022 | PENDING | The proxy counsel for the complainant requests for a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is not well. In view of the same, request is allowed. Matter to come up on 16.12.2022 for further proceedings. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 19-Sep-2022 |
| 05-May-2022 | PENDING | Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard. Matter adjourned to 13.09.2022 for the purpose already fixed. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 06-May-2022 |
| 31-Mar-2022 | PENDING | In view of judgment dated 11.11.2021 in title- M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs State of UP & Ors. Etc. passed by the Apex Court, this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint in hands. File be transferred to the Authority. . Reader is directed to send the file immediately. | RAJINDER KUMAR | --- | --- |
| 21-Dec-2021 | PENDING | MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 31.03.2022. | RAJINDER KUMAR | View Order | 24-Dec-2021 |
| 10-Nov-2021 | PENDING | It is pointed out that proceedings of insolvency are still pending against the respondent and the matter is fixed before NCLT for today itself. To come for further proceedings on 21.12.2021. | RAJINDER KUMAR | View Order | 15-Nov-2021 |
| 28-Oct-2021 | PENDING | This is an application filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of complaint in hands. Learned counsel for complainant is ready for arguments, without filing any reply. Heard. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant/respondent that aCivil Writ Petition titled as Rajeev Chandwani & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors has been filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, by some persons including present complainant, where the petitioners have sought issuing of writ, in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other writ, directing respondent No.3 (Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd) to refund the amount, paid by the petitioners towards sale consideration of units, alongwith reasonable interest. The petitioners have levelled disparaging remarks about the functioning of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram(HARERA) including this forum, stating that due to ineffectiveness of redressal authorities, and also the failure of regulatory/supervisory authorities to perform their functions, has purportedly coerced the complainant to knock the doors of this Hon’ble High Court. According to learned counsel, this behaviour is nothing but audacity and temerity on the part of complainant, to condemn functioning of Authority. In doing so, the complainant has categorically shown lack of his faith in the legal process, invoked by himself(complainant). Again, apart from filing above mentioned Civil Writ Petition, the complainant alongwith some other litigants has instituted a complaint before The National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) New Delhi titled as Vivek Khanna & Ors Vs Space Towers Pvt Ltd. with prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, against respondent purportedly under Section 7 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Contending that the complainant has indulged in rampant and brazen forum hunting process by filing multifarious litigations against his client i.e. respondent, to mount unwarranted and undue pressure on the same, with an object that respondent will succumb to his blackmailing tactics, learned counsel requests to dismiss this complaint, alleging it is misuse of process of law, to file similar petitions before different authorities/courts. Learned counsel referred a case M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs Anil Patni & others, Civil Appeal No.3581-3590 of 2020 where Apex Court mandated as that The parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act(Consumer Protection Act) or file an application under the RERA Act. The fact that aforementioned writ petition as well as complaint have been filed by some persons, in association with present complainant is not denied rather admitted by learned counsel for the latter. It is submitted by him that there was no restriction in approaching the High Court by filing writ petition as mentioned above or the NCLT seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. His client was at liberty to approach different forums/courts, when law permits him to do so. To have ‘alternate’ remedy was no legal bar to exercise legal right. Learned counsel took me through a case Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd & Another Vs Union of India & Others 2019 SCC online SC 1005. One of conclusions/findings given by apex court was that The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code Learned counsel again relied upon case title as M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd Vs The State of Bihar & Ors Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 where following was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court- While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. The complainant gave an undertaking by fling an affidavit affirming that he will not press for his relief of refund in writ petition before Hon’ble High Court. Guiding principle on legal issue, raised through this application can be found in Section10 of The Code of Civil Procedure-1908, which is reproduced as under: S.10.Stay of suit: No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in(India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by the (Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court) The Apex Court in case National Institute of MH&NS; vs C Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 held that the object underlying section 10 CPC is to avoid parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. The Rajasthan High Court also observed in case title as Munnilal Vs Sarvajeet, AIR 1984 Raj 22, that basic object of Section 10 to protect a person, from multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. Polemic question to be answered here is, “even if complainant has filed aforesaid writ petition and also initiated proceeding before NCLT u/a 7 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can same proceed with this complaint or not.” In M/s Imperia Structures Case (Supra) the question was whether a complainant could avail remedy under The Consumer’s Protection Act and RERA Act, simultaneously. Both of these forums were competent to grant same relief, as sought by complainant. Problem before this forum is not same. Complainant of this case has filed another complaint before NCLT. Apparently, he has not prayed for refund of amount from respondent ( as in this case). Although one of reliefs sought from Hon’ble High Court is same i.e. refund of amount but firstly, it is not a civil suit but a writ petition. Section 10, bars institution of suit, on same cause of action. Claim in a writ petition is generally not a civil right of petitioner, it depends upon discretion of the High Court or the Supreme Court, to allow writ or not. Similarly, Section 79 of RERA Act, bars ‘Civil Court’ from entertaining suit or proceedings in respect of matter, which Authority or Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered determine, and not the High Court. Thirdly, said writ petition was filed later on, when complaint in hands was still pending. It is for Hon’ble High Court to decide if said petition is maintainable there or not. Moreover, the complainant has given undertaking that he will not stress for said prayer, rather will withdraw prayer of refund, in said writ petition. Simply, to say that present complainant has alleged before the High Court of Delhi in writ petition mentioned above that due to ineffectiveness of redressal authorities and also the failure of regulatory/supervisory authorities to perform their functions, had coerced him (complainant) to knock doors of Hon’ble High Court, does not amount to disparaging remarks about functioning of authority or this forum. Apparently, the complaint in hands is pending for a long time. According to learned counsel for complainant, 21 dates of hearing have already been given in this matter. If all this is true and complainant point out all this to the High Court, the same does not amount that complainant had no faith in legal process. To approach the High Court was also a legal process. In this way, I am not in consonance with learned counsel for applicant/respondent blaming the complainant for audacity, in condemning the functioning of the authority or this forum. Considering facts as discussed, I find no reason to dismiss the complaint in hands as prayed by the applicant/respondent. Application in this regard is thus dismissed. To come on 10.11.2021 for arguments. | RAJINDER KUMAR | View Order | 02-Nov-2021 |
| 27-Oct-2021 | PENDING | Today the matter was fixed for arguments on an application filed by the respondent. As per learned counsel for complainant he is ready for arguments without filing any reply. Arguments heard on that application. To come on 28.10.2021 for order. | RAJINDER KUMAR | View Order | 29-Oct-2021 |
| 26-Aug-2021 | PENDING | Learned counsel for respondent has filed an application seeking dismissal of complaint. Copy supplied to learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant seeks some time to file reply as well as arguments. Let reply be filed within three weeks(as requested) with copy to the respondent. 2. To come on 27.10.2021 on consideration of this application. | RAJINDER KUMAR | View Order | 04-Sep-2021 |
| 18-May-2021 | PENDING | Due to increase in the Covid-19 cases in and around the area of the Authority and lockdown in the State, the case is not being taken up for hearing. Hence, as per directions of the Hon’ble Authority, it is being adjourned to 26.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed. 2. Both the parties be informed accordingly through e-mail. | SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL | View Order | 18-May-2021 |
| 02-Apr-2021 | PENDING | In pursuance to notice, the respondent put in appearance through Shri J.K. Dang and who filed memo of appearance. PoA be filed on the next date of hearing. 2. Written statement still not ready. One more date is requested and which is granted. Let the same be filed 2 weeks prior to the date fixed with a copy to the other side and the matter be put up on 18.05.2021 for arguments. | SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL | View Order | 13-Apr-2021 |
| 30-Mar-2021 | PENDING | Settlement is not possible. So, let the matter be put up on the date fixed i.e. 02.04.2021 for further proceedings. | SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL | View Order | 01-Apr-2021 |
| 10-Mar-2021 | FIRST HEARING | In pursuance to notice, the respondent put in appearance though its AR and who filed memo of appearance. 2. It is stated that copy of complaint and other documents have not been received. Though on 30.01.2020, the respondent was sent certain documents through courier and the same were received on 02.02.2021 as evident from tracking report but in order to avoid any ambiguity let the same be supplied to the respondent through its AR on e-mail within 3 days. 3. Written reply, if any, be filed 10 days prior to the date fixed with a copy to the other side and the matter be put up on 02.04.2021 for arguments. 4. An application for referring the matter in dispute to mediation forum has been filed. Though the application is being opposed but the parties should be given a chance to sit across the table and to make an effort to settle the matter amicably. So for that purpose the matter be put up on 30.03.2021 at 2:00 PM | SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL | --- | --- |
| Date of Judgement | Party Details | Judgement Uploading Date | View Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22-Sep-2023 | RAJEEV CHANDWANI V/S SPAZE TOWER PVT LTD |
09-Oct-2023 |
|
| 19-May-2023 | RAJEEV CHANDWANI V/S SPAZE TOWER PVT LTD |
--- | --- |
| Dak ID | Receiving Date | Submitted By | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20127 | 25/06/2021 | JK DANG | REPLY RECEIVED |
| 31888 | 29/04/2022 | PSP LEGAL | CRA FOR REFUND |
| 50633 | 24/03/2023 | JK DANG | APP FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT |
| 55219 | 05/07/2023 | APOORVA THAKRAL | APP FOR SETTING ASIDE OF EX PARTE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 19.05.2023 AND APP FOR RESTORATION OF COMPLAINT |
| 15800 | 09/02/2021 | VENKET RAO | NEW COMPLAINT |
Web Information Manager
Shri Arvind Mehtani,Executive Director, HRERA
Mini Secretariat, New Office Block,
2nd & 3rd Floor ,Sector-1,
Panchkula,
Haryana- 134114,India
Email: hrerapkl[dash]hry[at]gov[dot]in
Telephone: +91 172-2584232,2585232
Website Designed and Developed By National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Owned by HRERA PANCHKULA & HRERA GURUGRAM Jointly
© 2018 Copyright. All Rights Reserved.